My opinion of Skyfall:
Great movie, disappointing cast.
Yeah, sure, the acting was good and everything, they all did their jobs but I have a few minor appearance problems:

1. Bond isn't blonde, he has a British accent and he is witty and charming.
2. M is a MAN!
3. Moneypenny is supposed to be old.
4. And I miss the old Q!

Furthermore, it was a awesome movie and I enjoyed it very much!

You're not really familiar with James Bond before Brosnan are you? Or the Fleming novels._________________Perfection is a lifelong pursuit requiring sacrifice. The only way to get it quicker is to sacrifice the most.

Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 11:56 am

Message

JainaSoloMaster

Joined: 04 Sep 2012Posts: 577Location: In front of my laptop

Oh, I'm very familiar with the movies before Brosnan, in fact, I liked the Bond movies with Roger Moore in much better. Moore is like my vision of Bond and the one I like to keep in mind while reading the one Bond book I managed to pick up at the library._________________We fight, we earn, we never learn. And through it all, the hero falls...
~Heroes, Mika~

Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 12:04 pm

Message

Caedus_16Master

Joined: 15 Apr 2008Posts: 5226Location: Korriban

JainaSolo wrote:

Oh, I'm very familiar with the movies before Brosnan, in fact, I liked the Bond movies with Roger Moore in much better. Moore is like my vision of Bond and the one I like to keep in mind while reading the one Bond book I managed to pick up at the library.

Honestly Craig's portrayal is the closest we've gotten to the Bond from the Fleming novels. He was never a classy person, he was a misogynist and and alcoholic, not to mention a sociopath. I think Craig is doing better that some bonds we've gotten (Timothy Dalton comes to mind). I was introduced to the novels, then the films after, so I'm really enjoying him. Moneypenny was always young and flirting with Bond back in the older films, its only around the Brosnan era that she got older and M became a woman. That's the only reason I asked which ones you were familiar with, because a lot of this is actually a lot closer to both the Fleming portrayal and the Connery/Moore eras.

And I wish they could bring back the old Q as well, but sadly he passed away right before the premier of The World Is Not Enough _________________Perfection is a lifelong pursuit requiring sacrifice. The only way to get it quicker is to sacrifice the most.

Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 12:14 pm

Message

JainaSoloMaster

Joined: 04 Sep 2012Posts: 577Location: In front of my laptop

I never read the books so I wouldn't really know how the "true" Bond is. I was introduced to the Roger Moore films first so the image of Moore as Bond stuck in my head and every other interpretation of him seemed wrong to me. As for Moneypenny, she never struck me as the kind of lady who whould race through the streets in a car holstering a gun and all that..._________________We fight, we earn, we never learn. And through it all, the hero falls...
~Heroes, Mika~

Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 12:29 pm

Message

CerrineaMaster

Joined: 09 Jun 2009Posts: 1491

I've read the Bond novels and started with the Sean Connery movies. I never could stand Moore as Bond because he turned Bond into a caricature. Dalton and Brosnan eh just meh.

Connery was close to Bond, but Craig is probably even closer. What they both have in common is that deadly edge that imo none of the other actors really gave Bond. The rest played him suave which was just off._________________Roqoo Depot co-founder.

Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 12:31 pm

Message

Caedus_16Master

Joined: 15 Apr 2008Posts: 5226Location: Korriban

JainaSolo wrote:

I never read the books so I wouldn't really know how the "true" Bond is. I was introduced to the Roger Moore films first so the image of Moore as Bond stuck in my head and every other interpretation of him seemed wrong to me. As for Moneypenny, she never struck me as the kind of lady who whould race through the streets in a car holstering a gun and all that...

That was odd for me to, but I just kind of rolled with it. Its a reboot, its specifically trying not to be the older ones. She's also African-American, which is just crazy to purists, but I think she did a good job.

Q was actually the boldest move they made. Its a modern era, the gadgets would come off as cheesy in this new Bond series, but having him be a more active member of the team was great to me.

Roger Moore was a great Bond but Connery will always be my favorite portrayal. The man came really close to nailing that 60's feel._________________Perfection is a lifelong pursuit requiring sacrifice. The only way to get it quicker is to sacrifice the most.

Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 12:38 pm

Message

JainaSoloMaster

Joined: 04 Sep 2012Posts: 577Location: In front of my laptop

Hmm...seems like I'm going to start reading the novels. I'm really interested in what the "true" Bond looks like. Brosnan was ok but Timothy Dalton also didn't really do it for me._________________We fight, we earn, we never learn. And through it all, the hero falls...
~Heroes, Mika~

Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 12:45 pm

Message

Caedus_16Master

Joined: 15 Apr 2008Posts: 5226Location: Korriban

JainaSolo wrote:

Hmm...seems like I'm going to start reading the novels. I'm really interested in what the "true" Bond looks like. Brosnan was ok but Timothy Dalton also didn't really do it for me.

The novel Bond may boost your appreciation for Craig. The novel Bond is, like I said, a monster that is barely contained sometimes. He has moments of humanity but overall he's damaged, angry, vicious, and charming (which makes him all the more dangerous). He isn't charming in the way that Brosnan or Moore were, but more that brooding and attractive charming that Craig pulls off._________________Perfection is a lifelong pursuit requiring sacrifice. The only way to get it quicker is to sacrifice the most.

Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 12:57 pm

Message

JainaSoloMaster

Joined: 04 Sep 2012Posts: 577Location: In front of my laptop

Caedus_16 wrote:

He has moments of humanity but overall he's damaged, angry, vicious, and charming (which makes him all the more dangerous). He isn't charming in the way that Brosnan or Moore were, but more that brooding and attractive charming that Craig pulls off.

Oooo! My kinda guy! _________________We fight, we earn, we never learn. And through it all, the hero falls...
~Heroes, Mika~

Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 4:30 pm

Message

CerrineaMaster

Joined: 09 Jun 2009Posts: 1491

Caedus_16 wrote:

Roger Moore was a great Bond but Connery will always be my favorite portrayal. The man came really close to nailing that 60's feel.

Can't agree with you on Moore, but Connery will always be my favorite too. Agree with you that he nailed the 60s feel but that's probably because it was the 60s lol._________________Roqoo Depot co-founder.

Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 7:58 pm

Message

Caedus_16Master

Joined: 15 Apr 2008Posts: 5226Location: Korriban

Cerrinea wrote:

Caedus_16 wrote:

Roger Moore was a great Bond but Connery will always be my favorite portrayal. The man came really close to nailing that 60's feel.

Can't agree with you on Moore, but Connery will always be my favorite too. Agree with you that he nailed the 60s feel but that's probably because it was the 60s lol.

Indeed, living in that time period probably helped him _________________Perfection is a lifelong pursuit requiring sacrifice. The only way to get it quicker is to sacrifice the most.

Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 10:44 pm

Message

Dog-Poop_WalkerMaster

Joined: 28 Jan 2012Posts: 1481Location: Soul of Cinder

Saw The Hobbit. Pretty awesome. As as film, they did everything just about right. I think that everyone is going to be happy with it and it really works as a prequel to LOTR.

I still think that 3D is a gimmick, though. I've yet to see a movie that was better because of it. It's more like, "that looks kind of cool." At best. And for that it's usually employed with movies that are not very good otherwise. Plus a way to squeeze more money at the ticket counter.

The high frame rate was also kind of a failure, although I can see it maybe going a lot further for movies in the future. It did really bring out a lot more clarity in the detail, but because we are not used to seeing seamless motion it makes a lot of the movie look like it is in fast forward. I'd be happier without the gimmicks.

The CGI is done very well too and the combination of practical effects makes it work. But for a scene with a character against an all CGI background moving at high speed, the two techniques really make it stand out and I mean in bad way. They look like the old days of blue screen effects from the 70's. Not good, but it doesn't subtract from the movie._________________The spirit can die when the force that's crushing it is great enough. By raining bullets down on the silent faces, already turned away from the world, you thought you could destroy the face of our truth. But we have faith in a different force. That hopeless hope is what sustains us now. My comrades are more numerous than your bullets, and more patient than your executioners.

Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 10:47 pm

Message

Caedus_16Master

Joined: 15 Apr 2008Posts: 5226Location: Korriban

Dog-Poop_Walker wrote:

Saw The Hobbit. Pretty awesome. As as film, they did everything just about right. I think that everyone is going to be happy with it and it really works as a prequel to LOTR.

I still think that 3D is a gimmick, though. I've yet to see a movie that was better because of it. It's more like, "that looks kind of cool."

The high frame rate was also kind of a failure, although I can see it maybe going a lot further for movies in the future. It did really bring out a lot more clarity in the detail, but because we are not used to seeing seamless motion it makes a lot of the movie look like it is in fast forward. I'd be happier without the gimmicks.

The CGI is done very well too and the combination of practical effects makes it work. But for a scene with a character against an all CGI background moving at high speed, the two techniques really make it stand out and I mean in bad way. They look like the old days of blue screen effects from the 70's. Not good, but it doesn't subtract from the movie.

It was a decent movie, but is it just me or did it look more like a video game than a film?

Also, I don't mind CGI but one of the charms of LotR was that the makeup effects on the orcs were so perfect that it was great. While it never fully looked real, it looked more so than any of The Hobbit's CGI. That was my only real complaint about the movie actually, other than that I loved it._________________Perfection is a lifelong pursuit requiring sacrifice. The only way to get it quicker is to sacrifice the most.

Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 4:27 am

Message

Dog-Poop_WalkerMaster

Joined: 28 Jan 2012Posts: 1481Location: Soul of Cinder

You mean Azog the orc? or the mountain orcs? There were some practical effects done with the later. I'm not sure if there leader was all CGI or partly real._________________The spirit can die when the force that's crushing it is great enough. By raining bullets down on the silent faces, already turned away from the world, you thought you could destroy the face of our truth. But we have faith in a different force. That hopeless hope is what sustains us now. My comrades are more numerous than your bullets, and more patient than your executioners.

Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:22 am

Message

Caedus_16Master

Joined: 15 Apr 2008Posts: 5226Location: Korriban

Dog-Poop_Walker wrote:

You mean Azog the orc? or the mountain orcs? There were some practical effects done with the later. I'm not sure if there leader was all CGI or partly real.

I mean Azog as well as the entirety of the Goblins. The only ones with any practical effects were Azog's minions and they looked better than any of the rest of it._________________Perfection is a lifelong pursuit requiring sacrifice. The only way to get it quicker is to sacrifice the most.